2.

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the current research attempts to analyze components related to the
development necessarily throughout relevant studies. Theoretically, to establish the view
upon the instruction will develop, the review is started from defining reading fluency,
seeing what the components of reading fluency are and pointing out the characteristics
of fluent and non-fluent readers. It is important because that characteristic will be the
underlying reasons to the measurements in this developmental research. Substantively,
the chapter will also explain briefly about the theoretical support for the repeated
reading. Finally, the key terms in the current research will be discussed from the
methodological principles of repeated reading, how the application in L1/L2/FL setting,
reviewing from common strategies use to specific area of interest in this research and
eventually the characteristics of text used for practicing fluency and relevant
measurements to achieve the aimed development.

2.1 Reading Fluency

2.1.1 Defining Reading Fluency
Reading fluency has been the core a number of researches since 1974 for it
plays significant role in reading comprehension (Samuels, 1979; Pikulski and Chard,
2003; Rasinski, 2003; Samuels, 2006). However, a single definition about it has not
been agreed among researchers. Thus, to define the concept is one of main
attempts of researchers in the field of reading fluency (Bouguebs, 2007). Rasinski
(2006: 5) argues that it is due to the emphasis which constitutes the reading fluency
has changed over time. Therefore, to define the concept means we need to look on
how it has been defined in latter. Fortunately, a robust analysis to bear a prominent
constituent has been done by Bouguebs (2007: 27-30) greatly helps the current
research to rely on among definitions offered in latter.

Since the seminal article by LaBerge and Samuels in 1974 published up to

recently, Bouguebs suggested the same definition of that LaBerge and Samuels
theory in reading fluency is as “the ability to recognize written words in a connected
text accurately, with an appropriate speed and with a proper expression”. To reflect
the context, another definition offered by Pikulski (2006) might shed more light to the
relevant case in which the researcher aims to investigate in. He argued that:
 Reading fluency is a developmental process that refers to efficient,
effective decoding skills that permit a reader to comprehend text.
There is a reciprocal relationship between decoding and
comprehension. Fluency is manifested in accurate, rapid and
expressive oral reading and is applied during and makes possible,
silent reading comprehension. (2006: 73)

To state a clear definition is needed to extent the way of how the

components in the current research will be measured based upon (e.g. in the design
of experimental). The current research can be categorized as experimental
development since the selected definition convinced for its possibility to manifest
fluency in silent reading comprehension. These have changed over time, for
example Samuels’s definition in 2006 is different to his 1979 definition but the latter
incorporated the earlier ones. It shows that selecting the latest and contextual
definition to the aim of such research is meaningful. In conclusion, the present
research agrees to the definitions given from both moreover the possibility pointed
out by Pikulski (2006) about silent reading comprehension.

2.1.2 Components of Reading Fluency

Most researchers agree that reading process involves two separate but highly
interrelated areas: word identification (decoding) and comprehension (Hoover and
Gough, 2001). In an article entitled Toward a Model of a Fluent Reading, Samuels
(2006) view that a reader with a good reading comprehension must be able to read
words fluently. Meaning that, the fast and accurate word recognition is the key to
comprehension. In other word, an automatic word recognition must be the way to
get better comprehension. In the controversies about from where the reading
comprehension starts among model of reading acquisition theorists, it suggests that
interactive model is best (Bouguebs, 2007). In interactive model, comprehension is
perceived as a product of both top-down and bottom-up processing. More
importantly, in that context, interactive model does not ignore both components,
decoding as lower level and comprehension as highest level.

To shed light, Samuels (1979) states that interactive model assumes that an
individual work at the highest level (comprehension) and drop down to lower levels
(word recognition) when processing at the highest level becomes ineffective
(1979:361). It makes balance between the two components, the higher level
 processing in relation to background knowledge and lower level processing when
decoding the linguistic items.

2.2 Automaticity Theory

2.2.1 LaBerge and Samuels Automatic’s Processing Theory in Reading
Fluency theory is lying on the lower processing which is called as
automatic’s processing theory. That process is where the lower identification
process work when someone is reading. The LaBerge and Samuels automaticity
theory that follows the principles of the automaticity theory in the acquisition of a
new skills has 4 key elements. They (1974: 295) assumed that someone can only
attend one thing at a time but he may be able to process many things as long as no
more than one requires attention. Then, the first key element is attention. Since the
two components in fluency cannot be attempted to attention at the same time,
LaBerge and Samuels see the part of reading process should be done with a slight
amount of attention. The non-fluent readers however tend to pay more attention in
decoding process and to leave attention for comprehension. In order to achieve
better comprehension, logically, between those two components of reading
(decoding and comprehension) of course word recognition or decoding that is
defined as lower level processing can be performed automatically rather than the
comprehension that requires higher level processing (Hudson et al, 2005:703).
Therefore, the term automatic in the LaBerge and Samuels’s theory means that
reader must be able to recognize the texts quickly and accurately which enables him
to focus more on comprehension (Samuels, 2006).

The second key element is cognitive ability to extract the printed letters from
the text to words built on the smaller units to the largest unit. That ability is defined
as visual memory. The size of visual unit between one another is depending on the
reading skill, particularly, the familiarity with the words. The difference explains why
the amount of time in the processing of a text differs from one to another. The
counterpart is, strongly interrelated, following the next reason of it. It is the third key
element in this theory, phonological memory. Phonemes and morphemes that map
onto the letters and words are parts of the phonological memory. The organization in
the size of sounds unit is similar to the organization of code in the visual memory
(Bouguebs, 2007: 51).

The acquisition of reading proficiency can be first noticed as the process of

recognizing the text orthographically and phonologically become less in attention or
even automatic. It is directly related to the last key element of the theory, the
semantic memory. The processing in this element involves recalling the general
knowledge. That general knowledge about the words and their meaning is stored in
the semantic memory. This process while reading then is considered as
comprehension at which higher level processing that requires semantic memory to
respond the new information retrieved in the working memory to facilitate the
understanding.

To draw the line of this theory, in turn, performing word recognition or

decoding automatically or with less attention will allow to facilitate comprehension
more. According to LaBerge and Samuels (1974) automatic processing theory, it
considers that simultaneous performance of multiple tasks or reading which is the
decoding process becomes automatic means that reading become more fluent. It is
all that this research is inherently hoped to bring to the students throughout their
usage of the developed instructional material. Hence, it can obviously be seen
essential to explain in this chapter.

2.2.2 Automaticity in Decoding: Fluent/Non-fluent Reading

The automaticity in the process of decoding the text read allows reader to
become more fluent by providing full attention to comprehension processing. It is
also important to include what Day and Bamford (1998) stated about how the fluent
readers encounter unfamiliar words during the reading task. The argument of Day
and Bamford is a good example of distinction between automatic word recognition
and the strategy of slow phonemic decoding. That phonemic decoding is used by
the fluent reading when encountering words which are not part of their sight (visual)
vocabulary (1998:12-13).

The automaticity process in decoding that is underlying reading fluency is

believed to define characteristics of good readers, and in other hand lack of fluency
defined as poor readers (Hudson et al, 2005:702). The poor readers or non-fluent
 readers tend to give their total attention to focus on decoding stage (Armburster et
al, 2003: 22).

2.3 Timed Repeated Reading

There are apparently two routes to fluency development according to Samuel
(2006). One is getting the reader engaged in an extensive practice of graded
reading books, suitably for the level of reading proficiency. This is argued that by
high frequency of variety of contexts, the reader will develop the ability of automatic
decoding. The second route is building fluency through different varieties of
repeated reading. In the second route, there are two major instructional methods
(National Reading Panel, 2000). First approach is to use direct approach namely
repeated oral reading that is known as repeated reading (Armburster et al, 2003:
24). The second approach is then more indirect as known as Independent Silent
Reading. It is regarded as indirect approach due to the little guidance and feedback
from the teacher and mostly done outside the formal classroom.

Bouguebs (2007) as proponent of the method done in such way asserted

similarly to those previous credible researches carried out both in L1 setting by
Samuels in 1979, Dowhower in 1989, National Reading Panel at Washington in
2000, Blevins & Lynch in 2000, Rasinski in 2003 and in L2/FL setting by Grabe in
1991, Anderson in 1999, Tagushi and Gorsuch in 2002, Taguchi, Gorsuch and
Takayasu-Maas, M since 1997 up to recent year (2015). He stated that the repeated
reading has been proven to be more effective than any other method in improving
reading fluency in any settings.

Hereby, the present research is trying to establish a niche or possibility

(Pikulski, 2006) to look closer in between the first and second approach. The current
researcher believes that difference in principle between two approaches is merely
upon the settings. However, in such way the readers or students may employ the
procedure and principle of repeated reading outside of its nature (repeated oral
reading). This must be a key idea of the present research -combination between
concept of voluntarily reading improvement attempt in little guidance and feedback
by means independently. It is seen more encouraging and thus the present
developmental research is piloted to see whether it can be designed and resulted as
the expectation.

2.3.1 Methodological principles of Repeated Reading

As Samuels (2006) criticized his own previous theoretical suggestion, in
1979 he came up with more practical suggestion to apply in teaching implication of
LaBerge and Samuels’s automaticity theory. To draw principle of his more practical
suggestion, he compared between repeated reading in the process of becoming
good reader and gaining professional skills in the process of becoming an athlete by
practicing more over same task. Principally, the performance of the task is
considered to facilitated more than the complexity at the beginning of the reading
acquisition. In the same article, Toward a Model of Reading Fluency (2006), he
concluded that instead of having the students encounter a new selection
(material/text) daily, to have them read the same selected passage several times
until they reach the predetermined level of fluency must be prioritized.

The understanding of the principle has shed a light to the present research to
extend the considerable justification upon the material used in Indonesian National
Examination. The National Examination is of course standardized to average level
and expected output reading competence by the state ministry of education.
However, this condition might be hard for students with poor reading proficiency,
thus the offered principle cited above is helpful consideration toward arranging the
text by its complexity level that is regarded largely in EFL setting as difficulty.

2.3.2 Repeated Reading in L1, L2 and FL Settings

Day and Bamford (1998: 17) asserted that there is no difference between L1
or L2/FL fluent readers in the cognitive process because it is the same for both.
Then, Bouguebs (2007) concluded that achieving automaticity in decoding for any
students regardless L1 or L2/FL is equally important (p. 62).

National Reading Panel (2000) reported that researches conducted in L1

setting have showed that repeated reading improves simultaneously reading rate,
word accuracy, prosody in reading and reading comprehension. Even though the
report has demonstrated that RR can be done in any proficiency level while is
proven to significant improvement, still few empirical studies done in L2/FL setting
(Bouguebs, 2007: 71). However, Tagushi and Gorsuch’s researches that were
published in 2002 and developed in 2004 (Tagushi, Gorsuch and Takayasu) has
been a closest relevant study to the present research. In their 2004 publication, it
was not only covering the gap in their previous study about the shortness of the
treatment period (only ten weeks) but also exploring the effect of assisted reading
on silent reading and comprehension. Likewise, in previous study (Day and
Bamford, 1998) has proved that extensive reading is effective to develop silent
reading fluency and comprehension in L2/FL settings. By concluding their qualitative
research in 2004, Taguchi, Gorsuch and Takayasu suggested that RR is a
promising method as extensive reading for enhancing second and foreign language
readers’ performance. Therein, the present research is trying to translate the
extensive reading through RR into an independent repeated method (extensively) or
what the research called as Non-Assisted Repeated Reading.

2.3.3 Strategies of Repeated Reading

So far in the oral repeated reading there are five strategies commonly used.
They are student-adult reading, choral (or unison) reading, tape-assisted reading,
partner reading, and readers’ theatre. The first strategy called student-adult reading
done in of course assisted reading in which the teacher (as adult one) provides a
good model of fluent reading to be listened by the student (reader). Then the student
read aloud the passage. The choral reading is similarly to the previous strategy and
additionally is used in many contexts such as rehearsing poetry, practicing roles in
play, etc.

The third strategy is developed by Chomsky (1976) where she substituted

teacher as model of fluent reader to tape or recording. In this strategy, students are
first listening to the audio of fluent reader reads and following the same passage by
pointing each word in that book. After that, the student should try to read together
with the tape until he/she is able to read the book independently without the support
of the tape.

In the fourth and fifth strategies, they are not too different to previous ones.
In a nutshell, Bouguebs (2007) pointed out that those varieties of oral repeated
reading require modelling, rereading from the student, and immediate feedback.
Knowing this is challenging for the present developmental research to try on giving
immediate feedback in written form and absence of modelling. It is clear that adults
or higher reading proficiency ones may provide more corrective feedback in
phonetical sense to how it read nevertheless it is carried out in silent reading.

2.3.4 Timed Repeated Reading

According to the underlying principle of RR, the priority is to focus on the
reading level proficiency achievement instead of new selected daily passage for the
students (see section 2.3.1). Particularly, however, O'shea and Sindelar (1985)
proved that four rereading are sufficient for the reader to achieve. Means that,
reliable selected material or text which suits to students’ proficiency level will
contribute to this scope. Then, practicing over four to five times will be considered as
inappropriate result. But, since the aim is to develop student reading fluency skill
that is to help suit students’ need on National Examination, some features to help
prompt and written immediate feedback is hoped to aide.

The timed repeated reading has become one of most selected method to
develop student’s reading fluency. It has been proved by the easiness of access to
big number of free resources of teacher and practitioners spread in internet. By
setting the predetermined time, the aim is to achieve specific predetermined level of
reading fluency.

2.3.5 Characteristics of the Text for Repeated Reading

To figure the characteristics of text used in RR is still on an ongoing debate
among researches in this field (Samuels, 1979; Invernizzi, 2002; Mc Ewan, 2002;
Armburster et al, 2003; Sousa, 2004). In consideration, the present research should
at least take three elements into account. They are the level of difficulty, the length,
and variation of the text.

According to Sousa (2004: 86), the good text is one that provide 95%
accuracy as well as understanding for student’s independent reading level. She
argued that the more difficult text will be apparently more hindering because
students will spend much effort on decoding. Nonetheless, accordingly, Mc Ewan
(2002) advices that deciding to use texts from the curriculum materials, the reading
teacher should select those passages that have minimal dialogue and no unusual
names or words. Those two statements are contradicting but interrelated, so the
present research would try to consider both arguments in the selection of the text
use.
2.3.6 Measurement of Timed Repeated Reading: Silent Reading
Comprehension

In order to provide a theoretical comparison between the reliability of

comprehension test which the present research suggests and common oral
repeated reading measurement, it is necessary to present interrelatedly some
measurements (e.g. Bouguebs, 2007). The present research proposes
comprehension test to see the concrete evidence of improvement in promoting the
reading fluency skill. Though arguably, Shinn (1989) described the Curriculum
Based Measurement test for instance needs to assess actual perform of the
behavior concerns. Therefore, in this sense, instead of reading the passage silently
then to listen to the examinee is what the examiner must do (1989: 31). This is
arguable because the CBM is only used to measure some aspects and leaving for
the key aspect in the present research that is comprehension. Then, comprehension
test which is provided along with the self-monitoring graphs for the students will not
only be a measuring tool but also an encouraging tool to take more reading
extensively. This statement is supported by Blevins et al (2000) that charting is
effective because when the students consult their graphs regularly they have
concrete evidence of their progress in reading.